Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2003

Home

312 Page 2--AprilI0, 2003 7.5, Standing -- Neighbors object to paintball playing field Did they have standing to appeal? NORTH CAROLI2'qA (02/16/03) -- In October 2000, the town issued Ivlitchell a minor special use permit to operate a paintbal/playing field on his property ia a rural section of Durham County. The owners of a tract of land'-- located across a local highway about 400 yards from Mitchell's property -- objected. They appeared at the hearing conducted by the Durham Board of Adjustment and unsuccessfully objected to the issuance' of the- permit. The neighbors appealed to court seeking review of the board's decision. The court reversed the board's decision, f'mding the permit should not have been issued in the absence of evidence that was "competent, material, and sub- stantial in support of the Board's finding that the proposed use is not injurious to the value of the properties in the general vicinity." Mitchell appealed, claiming the petitioners !acked standing to appeal the board's decision. Thus, they argued, the lower court lacked subject matter ju- risdiction. DECISION: Vacated and remanded. The neighbors did not have standing to appeal the permit. They failed to prove they would be subject to "special damages" distinct from the rest of the community. Without proof of special damages, the peti- tioners were not a~,gneved persons. The fact the petitioners owned land located near lVlitchell's property was insufficient to qualify as an allegation that they would suffer special damages. Citation: Sarda v. City/County of Durham Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, No. COA02-284 (2003). see also: Lloyd v. Town of Chapel Hill,' 489 &E. 2d 898 (1997). Notice-- Neighbors claim did not receive notice of livestock waste storage facility Owners also sent letters to neighbors announcing hearing MINNESOTA (02/25/03) -- The Jotmsons owned agricultural land and in- tended to construct a livestock waste storage facility on the/r property. To do so, they were required to apply to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a feedlot-related permit. The Johnsons also applied for a conditional use per- mit with the Benton County Department of Development. A notice appeared in the Benton County News announcing a public hear- Lng to consider the permit application. The department sent notice to the record owners of neighboring properties. However, Schueller did not receive notice. IvLr. Johnson also sent letters to neighbors announcing the time and place of the hearing and that it "would be an excellent opportunity for you to'speak for or I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I